DEATAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is response to claims filed on 01/23/26.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-10 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
5. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 12/17/25 & 04/06/26 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawing
The drawings filed on 08/14/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:7. Claim 10 recites, non-functional descriptive material limitations, "A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program causing a computer included in a communication device to execute operations...".
8. " A non-transitory computer readable storage medium " merely serves a support for data instructions, and the data instruction will not impart/convey a patentable distinction when no functional relationship exists. In particular, a non-transitory computer readable medium cannot process data instruction alone, and require enabling a computer processor/CPU to process the data instruction in order to impart/convey a patentable distinction of a claim.
As such, the functional language, "executing/processing data instruction stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a CPU or a computer processor" adds functional relationship to the clamed invention. Appropriate correction is required. (see MPEP 2111.05)
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's amendment filed on 01/23/26, regarding a claim interpretation under a 112, 6th paragraph (claims 1-2 & 7-8) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the claims are interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI).
10. Applicant's amendment filed on 01/23/26, regarding a specification objection (title) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn.
11. Applicant's amendment filed on 01/23/26, regarding a claim objection (1 & 9-10) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
12. Applicant's amendment filed on 01/23/26, regarding a 112, 2nd paragraph rejection (claims 1-10) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the 112, 2nd paragraph rejection is withdrawn.
13. Applicant's arguments and amendment filed on 06/06/25, regarding to a 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are moot with the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
15. Claims 1-3, 5-6 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiromasa et al. (hereinafter referred as Hiromasa) European Patent Application EP 3 554 137 A1, in view of Kahn et al. (hereinafter referred as Kahn) US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0089033 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 9: Hiromasa discloses a communication device /method that is connected, as a terminal device (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Relay terminal 300)), to a base station (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Base Station 100) of a cellular communication system and that relays communication between the base station and another terminal device (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Remote terminal 200) of the cellular communication system, the communication device comprising:
one or more processors (See FIG. 3; the relay terminal includes a processing unit); and
one or more memories (See FIG. 3; the relay terminal includes a storage unit) that store a computer-readable instruction for causing, when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors to execute operations including:
transmitting the user data generated in the communication device with the service quality identification information in which the first value is set (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042-0044; sending transmission traffic to the remote terminal using the set up link between the base station and the remote terminal), and transmitting the user data received from the other terminal device with the service quality identification information in which the second value is set (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0051-0052; The relay terminal 300 transfers the packet received from the remote terminal 200 to the base station).
Hiromasa discloses the relay terminal 300 notifies a network side (for example, the base station 100) of information regarding the discovery signal before transmitting the discovery signal. Such a notification will be also referred to as a discovery request. The discovery request can include, for example, identification information (UE identity or Capability) of the relay terminal 300, identification information of application, or the like (See Para. 0058) but does not explicitly discloses setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device, and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device.
However, Kahn from the same field of endeavor discloses setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device (See Table 1 & Para. 0069-0070; for Guaranteed Bitrate (GBR) use Quality Class Indicator (QCI) 1-4), and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device (See Table 1 & Para. 0069-0070; for non-Guaranteed Bitrate (GBR) use Quality Class Indicator (QCI) 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device, and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device as taught by Kahn in the system of Hiromasa to allocate resources in an eNodeB for adaptive bit rate application protocols (See Para. 0014; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Hiromasa and Kahn disclose a communication device,
Furthermore, Hiromasa discloses a communication device, wherein the operations further include acquiring terminal identification information from the other terminal device, the other terminal device being identifiable by the terminal identification information in the cellular communication system, wherein the communication device transmits the user data from the other terminal device with the service quality identification information and the terminal identification information (See Para. 0132; The remote terminal 200 notifies the relay terminal 300 of identification information of the remote terminal 200 so as to enable the relay terminal 300 to set a bearer on behalf of the remote terminal 200. The relay terminal 300 sets a bearer on behalf of the remote terminal 200, that is, while posing as the remote terminal 200, using the notified identification information. Further, the remote terminal 200 may notify the base station 100 of information indicating that the remote terminal 200 notifies the relay terminal 300 of the identification information. This identification information may be, for example, temporal identification information, and, specifically, may be the GUTI or the TMSI).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Hiromasa and Kahn disclose a communication device,
Furthermore, Hiromasa discloses a communication device, wherein the terminal identification information is either a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) or a globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) (See Para. 0132; Further, the remote terminal 200 may notify the base station 100 of information indicating that the remote terminal 200 notifies the relay terminal 300 of the identification information. This identification information may be, for example, temporal identification information, and, specifically, may be the GUTI or the TMSI).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Hiromasa and Kahn disclose a communication device,
Furthermore, Hiromasa discloses a communication device, communication with the other terminal device is performed by using a non-cellular communication method (See Para. 0067-0070).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Hiromasa and Kahn disclose a communication device,
Furthermore, Kahn discloses a communication device, wherein service quality identification information is represented by a value of either a quality of service (QoS) class identifier (QCI) (See Table 1; QCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein service quality identification information is represented by a value of either a quality of service (QoS) class identifier (QCI) as taught by Kahn in the system of Hiromasa to allocate resources in an eNodeB for adaptive bit rate application protocols (See Para. 0014; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Hiromasa and Kahn disclose a communication device,
Furthermore, Hiromasa discloses a communication device, wherein the operations further include acquiring from other terminal device, a value of the service quality
Regarding claim 10: Hiromasa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See FIG. 3; the relay terminal includes a storage unit) that stores a program for causing a computer included in a communication device to execute operations, where communication device is connected, as a terminal device (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Relay terminal 300)), to a base station (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Base Station 100) of a cellular communication system and that relays communication between the base station and another terminal device (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042; Remote terminal 200) of the cellular communication system, the communication device comprising:
transmitting the user data generated in the communication device with the service quality identification information in which the first value is set (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0042-0044; sending transmission traffic to the remote terminal using the set up link between the base station and the remote terminal), and transmitting the user data received from the other terminal device with the service quality identification information in which the second value is set (See FIG. 4 & Para. 0051-0052; The relay terminal 300 transfers the packet received from the remote terminal 200 to the base station).
Hiromasa discloses the relay terminal 300 notifies a network side (for example, the base station 100) of information regarding the discovery signal before transmitting the discovery signal. Such a notification will be also referred to as a discovery request. The discovery request can include, for example, identification information (UE identity or Capability) of the relay terminal 300, identification information of application, or the like (See Para. 0058) but does not explicitly discloses setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device, and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device.
However, Kahn from the same field of endeavor discloses setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device (See Table 1 & Para. 0069-0070; for Guaranteed Bitrate (GBR) use Quality Class Indicator (QCI) 1-4), and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device (See Table 1 & Para. 0069-0070; for non-Guaranteed Bitrate (GBR) use Quality Class Indicator (QCI) 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting, as service quality identification information, a first value from a first range of numbers for user data generated in the communication device, and a second value from a second range of numbers that does not overlap the first range and for user data received from the other terminal device as taught by Kahn in the system of Hiromasa to allocate resources in an eNodeB for adaptive bit rate application protocols (See Para. 0014; lines 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 4 & 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
17. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
18. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Sundararaman et al. 2012/0020250 A1 (Title: Shared task parameters in a scheduled of a network processor) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Baruch et al. 2008/0165795 A1 (Title: Device and method for processing data chunks) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Hussain et al. 2006/0075119 A1 (Title: TCP Host) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights